Heard Sri Ganga Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vibhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties.
The anomaly in the fixation of pay scale in favour of the petitioner came to light in the year 1999, therefore, by order 16.11.1999 and 30.11.1999, the anomaly was rectified.
Sri Vibhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties has clearly explained the respective pay scales to which the petitioner was entitled to as a consequence of revision of pay as well as the relevant dates from which the time scale was admissible to the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner was initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 250 - 500. The benefit of time scale on the pattern of 9+7+5 accrued to him on 1.4.1978 prior to which the benefit of revision of pay scale was granted to the petitioner on 1.4.1974. After revision of pay scale on 1.4.1974, the petitioner was entitled to time scale of Rs. 485 - 755 which was granted to him on completion of nine years' satisfactory service. The revision of pay was again effected w.e.f. 1.4.1979 by further orders but the last order revising the pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1979 was made in the pay scale of Rs. 775 - 1360.
The benefit of time scale at the second stage on completion of sixteen years' service was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 2225 - 3500 and further on completion of 21 years' satisfactory service, the petitioner was granted the benefit of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 2600 - 4000.
The position has been succinctly explained and there remains no doubt. It is true that the benefit as a consequence of wrong fixation of pay was advanced to the petitioner until the year 1999 i.e. prior to passing of aforementioned orders.
Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties has conceded that no recovery of excess payment has either been made from the petitioner or shall b made in future.
On the strength of statement made by learned counsel for opposite parties, no further relief in relation whereto a grievance has been raised in the present writ petition survives and the submission put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner that the wrong fixation of pay as was granted to him in the year 1990 ought to have continued even thereafter is misconceived and deserves rejection.
The petition is thus dismissed.
However, in case the petitioner is not granted the benefit of full pension and is being paid provisional pension on account of pendency of the present writ petition, the matter shall be processed and pension computed accordingly having regard to the orders dated 16.11.1999 and 30.11.1999 Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Fahim/-